Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Arpaio Response

Arpaio Response

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9,859 |Likes:
Published by matthendley

More info:

Published by: matthendley on Jun 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2874010.1
 William R. Jones, Jr., Bar #001481John T. Masterson, Bar #007447Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434Lori L. Voepel, Bar #015342JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012Telephone: (602) 263-1700Fax: (602) 200-7801wjones@jshfirm.com jmasterson@jshfirm.com jpopolizio@jshfirm.comlvoepel@jshfirm.comAttorneys for Defendants Maricopa CountySheriff’s Office and Joseph M. Arpaio
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,Plaintiff,v.Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa CountySheriff’s Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in hisofficial capacity as Sheriff of MaricopaCounty, Arizona,Defendants.NO. CV12-00981-PHX-ROS
LODGED: ProposedDEFENDANTS’ RULE(b)(6)MOTION TO DISMISS - Attached
 
Case 2:12-cv-00981-ROS Document 28 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 23
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2865269.1
 William R. Jones, Jr., Bar #001481John T. Masterson, Bar #007447Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434Lori L. Voepel, Bar #015342JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012Telephone: (602) 263-1700Fax: (602) 200-7801wjones@jshfirm.com jmasterson@jshfirm.com jpopolizio@jshfirm.comlvoepel@jshfirm.comAttorneys for Defendants Maricopa CountySheriff’s Office and Joseph M. Arpaio
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,Plaintiff,v.Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa CountySheriff’s Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in hisofficial capacity as Sheriff of MaricopaCounty, Arizona,Defendants.NO. CV12-00981-PHX-ROS
DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(b)(6)MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Joseph Arpaio(Defendants), through undersigned counsel, respectfully request the Court to dismissMaricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) as a Defendant because it is a nonjural entityincapable of suing or being sued. Defendants also request dismissal of Plaintiff’sdisparate impact claims in Counts III, IV and V because the Complaint fails to set forth asufficient statistical basis for those claims. Dismissal of the Title VI claims in Counts IVand V is also required to the extent they allege discrimination based upon language, whichis not a “proxy” for national origin. Count VI (alleged retaliation against “critics”) shouldalso be dismissed, as it fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and the First
Case 2:12-cv-00981-ROS Document 28 Filed 06/08/12 Page 2 of 23
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2865269.1
 
2
Amendment. Lastly, the request for injunctive relief relating to jail operations, posseoperations, supervision, oversight and MCSO’s “response to crimes of sexual violence”must be dismissed because such remedies are unavailable as a matter of law. This Motionis supported by the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the Complaint.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI.
 
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants have engaged in three categories of unlawful conduct: (1) a pattern or practice of discriminatory and otherwiseunconstitutional law enforcement actions against Latinos in Maricopa County; (2)discriminatory jail practices against Latino prisoners with limited English language skills;and (3) a pattern or practice of retaliatory actions against perceived critics of MCSOactivities. (Complaint ¶6). Plaintiff alleges that this conduct violates the FirstAmendment, Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. §14141 (§ 14141); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7(Title VI); the Title VI implementing regulations issued by the United States Departmentof Justice, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 to 42.112 (Title VI Regulations); and Title VI contractualassurances. (Complaint ¶7). Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief “to remedyDefendants’ violations of the law and to ensure that MCSO implements sustainablereforms establishing police and jail practices that are constitutional.” (Id. ¶8).
II.
 
THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE MUST BE DISMISSEDBECAUSE IT IS A NONJURAL ENTITY WITHOUT THE CAPACITY TOSUE OR BE SUED.A.
 
Controlling Federal and State Authority Establishes That MCSO LacksCapacity to Sue or Be Sued.
The capacity of a municipal entity such as the MCSO to sue or be sued isdetermined “by the law of the state where the court is located ….” Fed. R. Civ. P.17(b)(3). Governmental entities such as MCSO have no inherent power and possess onlythose powers and duties delegated to them by their enabling statutes.
See Schwartz v.
Case 2:12-cv-00981-ROS Document 28 Filed 06/08/12 Page 3 of 23

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->